http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7882953.stm

I say he should be allowed to present his case. Then let the people decide. Is this not another example of racism?

With only this article to go on, I should say Mr Wilders is a very dodgy character. Inciting racial hatred is a crime so although you can do this if you want (ie exercise your right to freedom of speech), you will be rightly arrested as a result.

From this account, Wilders has said the Koran is a fascist book and also said that the Koran has been used by extremists to justify their actions. 'Peaceful' Moslems have many times said that the Koran actually preaches peace and condemns the unlawful taking of life. It is the terrorists' 'interpretation' that's at fault.
Wilders is clearly trying to equate all Moslems with terrorists. That's demonstrably false so why should Wilders be given a platform? The gullible among us are already confused enough

Agree with all that apart from the spelling of Muslims.

I insist that my alternative spelling of Moslems is technically correct

While technically correct, Moslem is regared as offensive by some.

He's white? So how can it be racist?

Having seen the fillum whilst it graphically horrific and quite sensationalist it also makes a valid point that a minority of texts in the quran are used by the extremists to justify their actions.

It is up to the peace loving Muslims to stand up and made their voices heard in their communities.

I'm afraid to say though that as usual in these cases the ones with the biggest mouths get heard the most.

Finally may I ask a final question if a person had made such a film about The Bible would he condemned as violently?

welcome to the board

Well said.

Oh, well , I didn't realise that. But why is it considered offensive?

Cos they like to whinge about it.... like Koran and Qur'an

I've not seen the film, Mr P. But if it's sensationalist, that sort of speaks for itself. The guy's point about interpretation of the Koran has been made many times before, and has been answered, but he wants to bring it up again in a context where a)it will cause a lot of uneducated backlash and b)it will involve publicity for himself.

Islamic terrorists are criminals...we don't usually feel the need to go into how criminals interpret books, particularly when most law-abiding people interpret those books otherwise.

Confusing religion and race again I see.
Ambivalent seems to be the word of the day. That's what Moslems are. They preach charity but they curse infidels.

In their defence, every moslem I've known has been discreet in practising his or her religion.
Maybe that's an African thing.

Of course race and religion are separate issues, but there's not always time to define one's terms on a message board. And, had one done so in this case, the debate would have followed exactly the same course.

Voltaire.

The sooner left footers, Proddies, Mouslims, Hindu gadgies and gadgiesks and the rest of them accept its a load of fooking mumbo cnuting jumbo, the better

it's a great way to control lots of people though, innit?
The various religious mafia aren't gonna relinquish their position of strength easily

I have come to the conclusion that there must be some 'power' that created everything around us, but the idea of it 'getting in touch' with us via it's franchise, established religion, with it's rules and exclusive access rights, strikes me as a load of bollox.